'. 

,, 

STATE OF COLORADO 

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor 

Martha E. Rudolph, Executive Director 

Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 

4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. 

Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 

TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 

Located in Glendale, Colorado 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

March 31,2010 

Carol Rushin 

Acting Regional Administrator 

US EPA Region VIII 

1595 Wynkoop St. 

Denver, CO 80202 

Dear Ms_ Rushin: 

' ...... "' .. 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

RECEIVED 

U.S. EPA Region 8 

RA'sOfllce 

APR 012010 

The following actions are submitted to EPA for final approval and incorporation into the Colorado State 

Implementation Plan pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 , Appendix V, 2J(a)_ Two copies of the materials 

needed for your review of each action are included with this letter. 

• Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan- The Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (Commission) adopted a second ten-year maintenance plan for the Colorado 

Springs area using the Limited Maintenance Plan option. There were no revisions to the control 

measures in the plan. 

• Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan- The Commission adopted a second ten-year 

maintenance plan for the Greeley area using the Limited Maintenance Plan option. There were 

no revisions to the control measures in the plan_ 

• Pagosa Springs PMIO Maintenance Plan- The Commission adopted a second ten-year 

maintenance plan for the Pagosa Springs area. There were no revisions to the control measures 

in the plan, however, the mobile source emissions budget was reduced. 

• Telluride PMIO Maintenance Plan- The Commission adopted a second ten-year maintenance 

plan for the Telluride area. There were no revisions to the control measures in the plan, 

however, the mobile source emissions budget was reduced. 

• Common Provisions - The Commission adopted a revision to the Common Provisions 

Regulation to revise the definitions of "negligibly reactive volatile organic compound" and 

"volatile organic compound" (VOC) in Section I.G. to be consistent with the federal definitions 

for these terms. 
.. 

Carol Rushin 

March 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 

Page 2 

• Interstate Air Pollutant Transport State Implementation Plan - the Commission adopted a 

proposal to revise the interstate transport element of the State Implementation Plan to address 

outstanding issues that the US EPA had identified with plan previously adopted by the 

Commission. 

We look forward to your timely review and approval of this request. The office of the Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission may submit any additional teclmical support documentation or information 

that you may need for review directly to the EPA. Should there be any questions regarding these 

materials, please contact the Commission office at 303-692-3478. Thank you. 

Martha E. Rudolph 

Executive Director 

Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment 

cc. Paul Tourangeau 

Doug Lempke 

MarkKomp 
Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 

Copies of the following administrative materials are included in this submittal of revisions to 

Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. Hearing held on December 17, 2009. 

• Hearing Notice as Published on the Commission Website 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

v 2.1 (f) 

• Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred and Notice published in the Legal 

Ads of the Denver Post 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f) 

• Procedural Documents of the Commission (this includes the Agenda Item Control 

Sheet) 

• Parties Hearing Documents (this includes a list of the parties, the parties prehearing 

statements and rebuttal statements, and any orders by the Commission - - do not 

include all the attachments from the parties) 

• Proposed Language for State Implementation Plan Element 

• Technical Support Document 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.2 

• EPA Comments 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 

• Public Comments 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 

• State Implementation Plan Element Adopted by the Commission 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix V 2.1 (d) 

• Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Meeting Minutes 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix V 2.1 (g) 
Hearing Notice as Published 

on the Commission Website 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (f) 
STATE OF COLORADO 

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor 

James B. Martm, Executive D1rector 

Dedicated to protecting and tmprowng the health and enwronment of the people of Colorado 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

EDO-AQCC-A5 

4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South 

Denver, Colorado 80246-I 530 

Phone (303) 692-3 I 00 

Fax (303) 691-7702 

TOO (303) 691-7700 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

Regarding proposed revisions to: 

Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

SUBJECT: 

The Air Quality Control Commission will hold a public rulemaking hearing to consider revisions 

to the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Greeley. This is the second oftwo 10-year plans 

that are required by the Clean Air Act. 

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: 

The federal act requires the adoption of a second 1 0-year maintenance plan to demonstrate long 

term compliance with the national standard. 

HEARING SCHEDULE: 

DATE: December 17, 2009 

TIME: 9:00 AM 

PLACE: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Room 

Denver, Colorado 80246 

The hearing may be contmued at such places and llme as the Commzssion may announce. Interested 

parties may contact the Commzssion Office at 303-692-3476 to confirm meeting dates and tzmes. 

PUBLIC COMMENT: 

The Commission encourages all interested persons to provide their views either orally at the 

hearing or in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Commission especially solicits comments 

and analyses from persons who will incur directly some cost or benefit from the proposed 

revisions. Public testimony will be taken as close to the start of the hearing as possible and 

during the hearing as necessary. Written and/or electronic submissions prior to the hearing are 

requested to allow review prior to presentation at the hearing. Written and/or electronic 

submissions should be mailed to the Commission Office at least 14 days prior to the hearing. 

Page I of3 
PARTY STATUS: 

In order to obtain party status at the hearing, compliance with several requirements as defined in 

the Commissions Procedural Rules is necessary. A petition for party status must be filed by 

electronic mail with the Office of the Air Quality Control Commission no later than close of 

business on October 20,2009. The petition must: 1) identify the applicant,· 2) provide the name, 

address, telephone andfacsimile numbers, and email address of the applicants representative, 

and 3) briefly summarize what, if any, policy, factual, and legal issues the applicant has with the 

proposal(s) as of the time of filing the application. Electronically mailed copies must also be 

received, by this same date, by the Division staff person and the Assistant Attorneys General 

representing the Division and the Commission identified below. Any person may petition the 

Commission to file documents in paper copy format if they are unable for any reason to not 

comply with the requirements of 1.3.8(2) ofthe Commissions Procedural Rules. An original and 

a specified number of paper copies must be filed in the Office of the Air Quality Control 

Commission, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive 

South, Denver, Colorado 80246. 

Individuals may also obtain party status through the submittal of an initial alternative rule to the 

proposed rule. The submittal of an alternative proposal must be accompanied by an electronic 

copy of the initial alternative proposed rule and all other associated documents as required by the 

Commission's procedural rules and must be filed by electronic mail with the Office of the 

Commission by the date specified for party status requests. Initial alternative rules must also be 

filed by electronic mail with the Division staff person and with each ofthe Assistant Attorneys 

General. 

Air Quality Control Commission 

Theresa L. Martin 

EDO-AQCC-A5 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246 

Theresa.Martin@state.co. us 

Jerry Goad 

Attorney for the Commission 

Attorney General's Office 

1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Jerrv.Goad@state.co.us 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Bob True 

APCD-Bl 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246 

Robert.True@state.co.us 

Thomas Roan 

Attorney for the Division 

Attorney General's Office 

1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Tom.Roan@state.co. us 

Requests received beyond the above stated deadline shall only be considered upon a written 

motion for good cause shown. The Commission reserves the right to deny party status to anyone 

that does not comply with the Commission's procedural rules. 

STATUS CONFERENCE: 

A status conference will be held October 29,2009 at 1:00 p.m., at the Department of Public 

Health and Environment to ascertain and discuss the issues involved, and to ensure that parties 

are making all necessary efforts to discuss and resolve such issues prior to the submission of 

prehearing statements. Attendance at this status conference is mandatory for anyone who has 

requested party status. 

Page 2 of3 
PREHEARING CONFERENCE/PREHEARING STATEMENTS: 

Attendance at the prehearing conference is mandatory for all parties to this hearing. A 

preheaTing conference will be held November 17,2009 at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission Offices 

at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver. All parties must submit by electronic mail a 

preliminary prehearing statement to the Commission Office by close of business November 10, 

2009. In addition, electronically mailed copies of these documents must be delivered by that 

date to all persons who have requested party status. A copy of the preheaTing statement must 

also be electronically mailed to the Division point of contact and each of the Assistant Attorney's 

General identified above by close of business November 10,2009. Any revisions to the 

preheaTing statement must be submitted to the Administrator of the Commission at the 

preheaTing conference and by electronic mail to the Commission Office on the day of the 

prehearing conference. Any exhibit included in the prehearing statements will be electronically 

mailed to individual Commissioners for review prior to the hearing, provided the party files 

electronic copies of such exhibit. Rebuttals to the preheaTing statement may be submitted to the 

Commission Office and all other parties by close of business November 24,2009. 

EXCEPTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: 

The Commission's Procedural Rules provide for an exception to file documents by electronic 

mail. If granted an exception to electronic filing pursuant to the provisions of 1.3.8(3) of the 

Commissions Procedural Rules, the applicant for party status shall file an original and .fifteen 

copies of the prehearing statement in the Office of the Air Quality Control Commission, and 

shall also deliver copies to each other party, applicant for party status, the Assistant Attorneys 

General representing the Commission and Division, and the Division staff person for the 

proceedings, by electronic mail or as otherwise provided by the exception granted under 

Subsection 1.3.8(3), by that same day. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS: 

The Commission proposes these regulatory changes pursuant to its authority under Sections 25-

7-106,25-7-107,25-7-109 and 25-7-302, C.R.S. The rulemaking hearing will be conducted in 

accordance with sections 24-4-103 and 25-7-110, C.R.S., as amended, the Procedural Rules of 

the Commission and as otherwise stated in this notice. This list of statutory authority is not 

intended as an exhaustive list of the Commission's statutory authority to act in this matter. 

Dated this 5th day of October 2009 at Denver, Colorado 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

Douglas A. Lempke, Administrator 

Page 3 of3 
Meeting Agenda where Public Hearing Occurred and 

Notice published in the Legal Ads of the Denver Post 

40 C·FR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1(f) 
STATE OF COLORAOO 

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor 

Ned Calonge, M.D., Inten m Execut1ve Director 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

4300 Cherry Creek Dn ve South 

OED-OLRA-A5 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303 ) 692-3 100 

Fax (303) 69 1-7702 

TDD (303) 69 1-7700 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

Notice of Meeting and Agenda 

Air Quality Control Commission 

I>ecember 17, 2009 

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Room 

Call to Order: 

Approval of Minutes: 

Public Comment: 

Agenda Review: 

Denver, Colorado 

9:00a.m. 

Determination of a Quorum 

Review/Approval of the November 19, 2009 meeting minutes of 

the Air Quality Control Commission. 

The public is invited to comment on any air pollution issue not on 

the agenda. The Commission will not take action on issues 

discussed under this agenda item today; however, items may be 

scheduled for further discussion or action. 

The Commission Administrator will review the meeting agenda 

and discuss any proposed revisions to the agenda for the 

Commission's consideration. 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS FEBRUARY 18, 2010 

1. Contingency Plan Provisions for the Rocky Mountain National Park Nitrogen 

Deposition Reduction Plan 

(1 0 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) 

The Division will request that the Commission hold a public hearing in February to consider 

endorsing the contingency plan provisions for the Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan that 

have been developed by the Department of Public Health and Environment/ Air Pollution 

Control Division, US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Park Service. 
REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING HEARING MARCH 18,2010 

2. Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation 

(5 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) 

The Division will request that the Commission hold a rulemaking hearing to consider 

revisions to the Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation to remove the ambient air quality 

standards table in Section II and replace it with a reference to the federal standards, to 

remove Section LB. regarding the S02 increment standards and to make typographical, 

grammatical, and formatting revisions as necessary. 

3. Regulation Number 8, Part C 

(5 minutes presentation, 5 minutes discussion) 

The Division will request the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider revisions to 

Regulation Number 8, Part C, to repeal the lead emission standard. 

4. Regulation Number 11, Vehicle Emission Inspection Program in the North Front 

Range - Program Area Review 

(5 minutes presentation, 20 minutes discussion) 

The Division will request the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider revisions to 

Regulation No. 11 regarding the implementation of the vehicle emissions inspection 

program in Larimer and Weld Counties. Specifically, the Division will propose that the 

program area be expanded in Larimer and Weld Counties consistent with the statutory 

boundaries established in 2009 Senate Bill 003 and that the implementation date of the 

program be revised to reflect the implementation date requirements of the 2009 SB 003. 

The Division is also proposing to establish interim tailpipe emission limitations for the area 

and to update technical specifications for testing equipment. 

WRITTEN COMMENT 0NL Y RULEMAKING HEARING 

5. Common Provisions Regulation 

(5 minutes presentation, 5 minutes discussion) 

The Division proposed revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation, Section I.G., 

specific to the definition of "negligibly reactive volatile organic compound" and "volatile 

organic compound" to be consistent with the federal definitions. 

COMMISSION ACTION ONLY 

6. Regulation Number 13: Oxygenated Fuels Program 

(5 minutes discussion) 

On August 20, 2009 the Commission acted to adopt a proposal to repeal the requirements of 

Regulation Number 13 in its entirety effective February 1, 2011 . This action of the 

Commission was not timely filed with the Secretary of State and did not become effective. 

The Commission will consider an action to resubmit their August action to the Secretary of 

State for publication. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

7. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Conformity 

(20 minutes presentation, 50 minutes discussion) 

The DRCOG will present to the Commission its anticipated Transportation Conformity 

findings regarding the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the 2008/2013 TIP. 

2 
RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

8. Interstate Transport SIP 

(20 minutes presentation, 30 minutes discussion) 

The Division will present a proposal to revise previously adopted provisions to address the 

Clean Air Act Section 11 0; interstate air pollutant transport requirements. The Division 

received adverse comment on the previously adopted provision in May 2009 and has worked 

to revise the interstate transport plan consistent with the comments of EPA. 

9. Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision 

(10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) 

The Division will present to the Commission revisions to the carbon monoxide maintenance 

plan for Colorado Springs. This is the second of two 1 0-years plans that are required by the 

Clean Air Act. 

10. Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision 

(10 minutes presentation, 10 minutes discussion) 

The Division will present to the Commission revisions to the carbon monoxide maintenance 

plan for Greeley. This is the second of two 10-years plans that are required by the Clean Air 

Act. 

BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

11. Commissioner Informational Items 

Commissioners will discuss among themselves activities that they have participated in over 

the past month that they believe other Commissioners and/or members of the public may be 

interested in hearing about. 

12. Division Director's Report- Paul Tourangeau 

Monthly activities report 

13. Attorney General's Report- Jerry Goad 

Update of any recent court actions on air quality issues 

14. Administrator's Report- Doug Lempke 

• February meeting agenda items review 

• Review of Action Items from Today's Commission Meeting 

• Status of Pending Action Items 

Adjourn 

3 
, 

The Denver Newspaper Agency 

DENVER, CO 

PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT 

City and County of Denver, 

STATE OF COLORADO, SS . 

. . . . . . . . Jean Birch ........ being oflawtul 

•11• and being first duly swom upon oath, deposes and says: 

That he/she Is the Legal Advertising Reviewer 

of The Denver Newspaper Agency, publisher of the Denver Post, 

dally newspaper of general circulation published and printed In 

whole or In part In Denver, In the County of Denver and State of 

Colorado, and that said newspaper was prior to and during all 

the time hereinafter mentioned duly qualified for the publication 

of legal notices and advertisements within the Meaning of an Act 

of the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, approved 

April 7, 1121, as amended and approved March 30, 1123; and as 

amended and •pproved March 5, 1135, entitled •An Act Concemlng 

Legal Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the fees of 

printers and publishers thereof, and to repeal all acts and parts 

of acts In conflict with the provision of this Act• and amendments 

thereto: 

That the notice, of which the annexed Is • true copy, was published 

In th• .. ld n~•P:~to ~t: (dates of publication) 

.......... ~.~f.-2, ... ~:7 ............. . 

·················9··· ···········/J···r·················· .................. ~~a ............. . Slgn•ture ' 

Subscribed and swom to before me this ••••• 12 ••••• day 

Of ••• October ••• A.D"/001. \ • fj • j) 

....... Qb;.i .. ~f .~ ......... . , • • ••• ) Notary Public. 

My commission expires ••••• September 141 2013 ••••• 
Procedural Documents of the Commission 

- Agenda Item Control Sheet 
COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

AGENDA ITEM CONTROL SHEET 

Item Title 

Meeting d 

Proposed Greeley CO Maintenance Plan revision 

ate December 17. 2009 

NON·HEARIN 

Administr -

_Briefing 

_Policy 

GACTIONS 

ative 

Area Desi gnatioris -

_Adoption 

X Required 

Gener al25-7-105 

TYPES OF ACTION 

REQUE-ST FOR HEARING 

_ Public Rulemaking 

Informational 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

X Approval 

MOTION 

Attached 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY 

HEARING 

X Public Rulemaking 

Informational 

Denial 

_ Not applicable 

Specific 25-7-106, -107, -109 -302 

EPA SUBMITTAL 

Is this issue considered a SIP revision? Yes X No 

Which SIP? Greeley CO Date of EPA submission deadline: May 10. 2007 

December 1, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 1 
ISSUE STATEMENT: 

The Division is requesting that the Commission hear a proposed revision for the 

Greeley Carbon Monoxide (CO) attainment/maintenance plan. Recommendations of 

approval have been obtained from Greeley and the North Front Range Metropolitan 

Planning Organization. The APCD also recommends approval of the revision. 

The documentation shows that Greeley will continue to attain the CO National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through 2019. No additional control measures are 

required for Greeley to-· continue attaining the standard. 

Since Greeley CO levels are significantly below the NAAQS, the APCD is using the 

limited maintenance plan option for areas that EPA assumes cannot reasonably be 

expected to experience enough growth to violate the standards. Greeley measures just 

27 percent of exceedance levels for CO, which is below the 85 percent criteria for 

utilizing the limited maintenance plan option. 

The only changes to the attached attainment/maintenance plan since the September 

request for hearing are the inclusion of a section on Greeley's attainment history on 

pages 1 and 2, and inclusion of nonattainment new source review permitting 

requirements in the list of potential contingency measures on page 8 at the request of 

EPA. 

This revision satisfies the federal requirement for showing attainment for the second 

ten-year period after redesignation to attainment/maintenance. No additional revisions 

of the Greeley maintenance plan are anticipated. If future changes in mobile source 

models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with maintaining the 

CO standard, the State will address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that 

time. 

Please note that this maintenance plan was to be submitted to EPA by May 10, 2007 

(which is 8 years after EPA's approval of the initial redesignation request and 

maintenance plan, as required by the CAA). The Greeley area maintenance plan was 

amended in 2005 and maintenance of the CO NAAQS was demonstrated through 

2015. Though the plan update is late, no adverse environmental or administrative 

impact has occurred. 

December 1, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 2 
ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Proposed Greeley Maintenance Plan revision 

SIGNATURES: 

Pr:p/7;/J/ *if Date )1-/ I /04 

~Mm 

Division Director Date 
Parties Hearing Documents 

(this includes a list of the parties, the parties prehearing statements 

and rebuttal statements, and any orders by the Commission) 
BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

STATE OF COLORADO 

PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

AND ENVIRONMENT, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION 

REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE 

MAINTENANCE PLAN 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control 

Division ("Division") confirms that it supports its original proposal. North Front Range 

Metropolitan Planning Organization, the only party, supports this proposal. The Division is 

aware of no issues. The Division proposes no rule revision and, therefore, no economic impact 

analysis. 

DATED this 9th day ofNovember, 2009. 

JOHN W. SUTHERS 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environmental Quality 

Natural Resources and Environment Section 

Attorneys for AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

DIVISION 

1525 Sherman Street, 5th Floor 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Telephone: (303) 866-5280 

*Counsel of Record 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have duly served the foregoing Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment, Atr Pollution Control Divtsion's Preheating Statement upon the followmg 

parttes by electronic mail on November 9th, 2009· 

Jerry Goad 

Attorney General's Office 

1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Jerry.goad@.state.co.us 

Suzette Mallette 

North Front Range Metropolitan Planning 

Organization 

419 Canyon Ave., Suite 300 

Fort Collins, CO 80521 

smallette@.nfrmpo.org 

Theresa L. Martm 

Au Quality Control Commisswn 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246 

Theresa martin(a'~ state.co us 
RECEIVED 

BEFORE NOV 12 2009 THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

STATE OF COLORADO AlROUAllTY 

camo. CXJMSSION -PRE_H_E_A_RIN __ G_S_T_A_T-EM_E_N_T_O_F-:-N-O_R_T_H_F_R_O_N_T_RAN __ G_E_T_RAN--S-PO_R_T_A_T_I=O=N 

AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING COUNCIL 

REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE 

MAINTENANCE PLAN 

The North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (aka NFRMPO) 

hereby submits its Prehearing Statement in the above referenced matter. 

The NFRMPO as the Lead Planning Agency in the North Front Range supports the 

Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area. 

The Council appreciates the Limited Maintenance Plan approach and sees no issues. 

DATED this lOth day ofNovember, 2009. 

CLIFF DAVIDSON 

Executive Director, NFRMPO 

North Front Range MPO 

419 Canyon Ave. Suite 300 

Fort Collins, CO 80521 
BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

STATE OF COLORADO 

RECE ~V O 

OCT 14 LUU~ 

AIR QUALITY camo.~ 

IN THE MA TIER OF NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING REGARDING THE 

GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN, SECOND 10-YEAR 

PETITION FOR PARTY STATUS- NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN 

PLANNING ORGANIZATION (NFRMPO) 

The NFRMPO hereby petitions for party status in the Public Rulemaking Hearing Regarding the 

Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Second 10 -year before the Air Quality Control 

Commission on December 17, 2009. This petition is submitted via e-mail, with electronic copies 

being sent to the Air Pollution Control Division and Assistant Attorney General as instructed. 

Petition for Party Status 

1.:. Applicants 

NFRMPO is the Lead Planning Agency, as designated by the Governor, for mobile source air 

quality issues in the North Front Range. The NFRMPO is also the Metropolitan Planning 

Organization that is responsible for long range regional transportation planning and conformity 

determinations for their regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. 

NFRMPO represents 15 member governments that include the jurisdictions in the geographic 

area covered by this Maintenance Plan. 

2. Applicant's Representative 

Name: Suzette Mallette 

Organization: 

Address: 

Phone: 

Fax: 

E-mail 

North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization 

419 Canyon Ave Suite 300 

Fort Collins, CO 80521 

970-416-2257 

970-416-2406 

smallette@nfrrnpo .org 

3. Summary oflssues 

The NFRMPO Council wishes to state full support for the Greeley Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan, Second 1 0 - years. The NFRMPO Council appreciates the Limited 

Maintenance Plan approach with less stringent requirements. The NFRMPO Council, at their 

October 2009 meeting unanimously passed a resolution supporting the adoption of the Greeley 

Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. 

Submitted October 141

\ 2009 

Suzette Mallette 

North Front Range MPO 
Regional Transportation Planning Director 
Proposed Language and 

State Implementation Plan Elements 
Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area 

Second 1 0-year Revision: 

• December 2, 2009 DRAFT 

First Revision: 

• Adopted by the Colorado A1r Quality Control Commission, December 19, 2002 

• Adopted by The North Front Range Metropolitan Planmng Orgamzation, December 12, 

2002 

• Approved by The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency August 19, 2005 

(effective September 19, 2005) 

Origmal Redes1gnation Request and Mamtenance Plan: 

• Adopted by The Colorado A1r Quality Control CommiSSIOn, September 19, 1996 

• Approved by The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 10, 1999 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

Revisions prepared by: 

The Air Pollution Control Division 

·colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

430,0 Cherry Cr~k Drive_ South ·. 

:Denver, CO 80246-1530 

"(303) 692-3100 
Background 

The purpose of this second revision to the Greeley carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan is to 

show continued attainment of the federal CO standard for a second ten-year term (through 20 19) 

as required by the federal Clean Air Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The Greeley area was originally designated as nonattainment for CO under provisions of the 

1977 Clean Air Act (CAA). This designation was reaffirmed by the 1990 CAA, and Greeley was 

designated as a "not classified" CO area. "Not classified" areas are those areas that have 

historically been designated as nonattainment, but did not have violations of the CO NAAQS 

during the two years preceding the 1990 amendments to the CAA. 

The EPA first approved a CO redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Greeley area 

on March 10, 1999 (Federal Register Notice: 64 FR 11775). That plan established an attainment 

year of 1995 and provided for the continuation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program and an oxygenated gasoline program in the Greeley area. 

A revision of the plan occurred in 2002 to remove the inspection and maintenance program as 

well as the oxygenated fuels program. The 2002 revision showed an attainment year of 1992 and 

continued maintenance through 20 15 with emissions for all future years less than the 1992 

attainment year emissions. The two control measures were removed because they were no longer 

needed to show attainment of the CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Removal 

of the control programs complied with state requirements that maintenance plans be no more 

stringent than federal requirements. EPA approved the revision on August 19, 2005 (Federal 

Register Notice: 70 FR 48650). 

Attainment History 

1977: Greeley designated nonattainment for CO under provisions of the Clean Air Act 

1982: First State Implementation Plan adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission to bring area into attainment by 1987. 

1987: Attainment would not be reached, so new plan was developed with additional control 

measures of basic liM. oxyfuels and wood burning stove standards. 1987 also was the last 

year of a CO violation in Greeley. 

1984-1988: Number of CO yearly exceedances dropped from 10 in 1984 to 1 in 1988. It takes 

more than one exceedance in a calendar year to result in a violation. 

1991 : Greeley designated "not classified" nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act revisions 

of 1990. "Not classified" is for areas well below the NAAQS. The area was attaining the 

standard, and no SIP revisions were necessary under the CAA. 

1995: EPA published guidance for "not classified" CO areas to develop SIPS under the limited 

maintenance plan option. The APCD began a SIP revision under the limited maintenance 

plan option to request redesignation for Greeley as an attainment/maintenance area. 

1996: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the SIP plan and request for 

redesignation. The SIP was forwarded to the U.S. EPA. 

1999.: Greeley was officially redesignated as an attainment/maintenance area by the U.S. EPA. 

Maintenance was demonstrated for 10 years through 2009 as required by the CAA. 

1 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
2002: The SIP was revised to remove I/M and oxyfuels because Greeley was far below the 

NAAQS. That revision was adopted by EPA in 2005. 

2009: The SIP is updated to show continued attainment ofthe NAAQS for an additional10-year 

term, through 2019, as required by the CAA. 

Limited Maintenance Plan Option 

Colorado is using the Limited Maintenance Plan option in preparing this second ten-year 

revision. This option was also used in the initial Greeley CO maintenance plan and redesignation 

request that EPA approved on March 1 0, 1999. The option is explained in EPA guidance of 

October 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The guidance allows for a less rigorous approach than was previously required in developing 

maintenance plans for CO nonattainment areas that have design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85 

percent of the CO NAAQS). Greeley's design value in this plan revision is just 2.4 ppm (27 

percent of CO NAAQS), and was 5.3 ppm in the first 1 0-year maintenance plan. The design 

values were determined by using the second-highest maximum 8-hour value of eight consecutive 

quarters, as required by EPA guidance. Greeley has shown a continued reduction in CO values 

throughout the maintenance period. 

The limited maintenance plan approach requires development of an emissions inventory but does 

not require the inventory to be projected for future years. The maintenance demonstration is 

considered to be satisfied if the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality 

criteria for limited maintenance areas (at or below 7.65 ppm or 85 percent of the CO NAAQS). 

Transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that transportation plans are consistent 

with the emissions budget. The guidance for limited maintenance plans state that emissions 

budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is 

unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance 

period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budget test" of the 

transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. 

Continued Attainment of the Carbon Monoxide Standard 

Attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is demonstrated 

when monitoring data for each site show no more than one exceedance per year of the 8-hour (9 

ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) standards. Greeley has never exceeded the 1-hour standard, so this 

maintenance plan only addresses the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded 

in Greeley since 1988. 

Monitoring data for 1999-2008 demonstrates that Greeley continues to attain/maintain the 

national standard for carbon monoxide as required by 40 CFR 50.8. Data from 1999 through 

2008 are provided to demonstrate continual attainment/maintenance since the redesignation to 

attainment was promulgated in 1999. This demonstration is based on quality assured monitoring 

data representative of the location of expected maximum concentrations of carbon monoxide in 

2 

Draft December 2, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
the area (downtown Greeley). Data presented is the second highest maximum value recorded at 

the monitors. The second maximum value is used by EPA for determining compliance with the 

CONAAQS. 

The monitoring data presented in Table 1 verifies that Greeley continues to attain the national 8-

hour standard for carbon monoxide. Data recovery rates for the monitor exceeded the 75 percent 

completeness requirements for all years. All State and Federal quality assurance procedures were 

complied with, further substantiating the validity of the measurements as indicators of ambient 

carbon monoxide levels in Greeley. 

3 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Table 1 

1999-2008, 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Summary for Greeley 

Standard: 8-hour = 9 ppm * 

8-Hour 2°0 Maximum (ppm_} 

Site Name 1999 2000 2001 

Greeley, 811 15m St. 3.4 3.8 3.7 

8-Hour 2"0 Maximum (ppm) 

Site Name 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Greeley, 905 10m St. 3.3 3.7 2.8 3.3 

2002 

3.4 

2007 2008 

2.4 2.2 

* Due to mathematical rounding, a value of9.5 ppm or greater IS necessary to exceed the standard. 

Figure 1. Greeley Attainment Area 

4 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 

I 
Emission Inventories 

This maintenance plan revision utilizes 2007 as an attainment year for emission inventories, 

which is the same year from which the 2.4 ppm design value was derived. Emission inventories 

for a typical winter day are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 attainment year. Each inventory 

accounts for the emission control programs effective during that period. 

The modeling domain consists of the Greeley attainment area, which encompasses the City of 

Greeley and surrounding areas (see figure 1). The inventories were developed using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods, including the MOBILE6 emissions model, and the latest 

transportation data from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and demographic 

data from the State Demographers Office. 

Table 2. 

Greeley Attainment Area Emissions Inventory (Tons Per Day) 

Source Category 2007 

Biogemc 0.00 

Commerc1al Cookmg 0.05 

Fuel Combustion 0.55 

Highway Vehicles 55.36 

Non O&G Pomt Sources 0.58 

Non-Road 17.81 

O&G area 0.02 

O&Gpomt 0.03 

Railroads 0.04 

Structure Fires 0.03 

Woodburmng 6.75 

TOTAL 81.23 

Note: Results are reported With two decimal place preciSion to provide representation of smaller source 

categones. This level of precision is not mtended to suggest a level of accuracy. 

Enforceable Control Measures for the Maintenance Period 

• Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control tailpipe standards and regulations, 

including those for small engines and non-road mobile sources. Credit is taken 

for these federal requirements, but they are part of a federally administered 

program and not a state commitment of the Colorado SIP. 

5 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
• Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No.3, Air Pollution 

Emission Notices - Permits 

• AQCC Regulation No.4, Wood Stove Standards 

• AQCC Regulation Number 6, New Source Performance Standards 

• AQCC Common Provisions Rule 

The Common Provisions and Regulation No. 6 delineate industrial source control programs. The 

Common Provisions, and Parts A and B of Regulation No.3, are already included in the 

approved Colorado SIP. Regulation No.6 and Part C of Regulation No.3 implement the federal 

standards of performance for new stationary sources and the federal operating permit program. 

The revised Greeley maintenance plan makes no changes to these regulations. 

Maintenance Demonstration 

This maintenance plan utilizes EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan option, as explained above. The 

Limited Maintenance Plan approach can be utilized when an area has a design value at or below 

7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS). The design value for the Greeley CO maintenance 

area is 2.4 ppm (27 percent of CO NAAQS), which is the highest second maximum 

concentration for the 2007-2008 monitoring period. 

Transportation Conformity Determination 

Under the limited maintenance plan approach, transportation conformity is demonstrated by 

showing that transportation plans are consistent with any existing emissions budgets. When any 

existing budgets expire, conformity is then presumed and regional analyses and emission budget 

tests for transportation conformity are no longer necessary. The guidance for limited 

maintenance plans states that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining 

for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will 

experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation of the CO NAAQS 

would result. Therefore, the "budget test" of the transportation conformity rule is met, according 

to the guidance. 

For the Greeley maintenance area, the EPA-approved emission budgets are 63 tons of CO per 

day (2005-2009), 62 tons per day (2010-2014), and 60 tons per day (2015 and beyond). 

According to the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, these budgets are to remain in place, and 

conformity with these budgets must be demonstrated, through the year 2015. Beginning in 2016, 

the budgets expire. 

Once the Greeley CO attainment/maintenance area under the Limited Maintenance Plan option is 

not subject to the budget test, the area remains subject to other transportation conformity 

requirements. 

6 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Monitoring Network I Verification of Continued Attainment 

The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) will continue to operate an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify the continued attainment of the 

CO NAAQS. If measured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, 

fleet mix, etc.) change significantly over time, the APCD will perform the appropriate studies to 

determine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. An annual review of the 

NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance system will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10 to determine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary and to determine 

whether the system continues to meet the monitoring objectives presented in Appendix D of 40 

CFR Part 58. 

Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan contain contingency provisions 

to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the CO NAAQS which occurs in 

the Greeley attainment/maintenance area. 

The contingency plan must ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once 

the need is triggered. The primary elements of the contingency plan involve the tracking and 

triggering mechanisms to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process for 

implementing appropriate control measures. 

Tracking 

The tracking plan for the Greeley area consists of continuous carbon monoxide monitoring and 

analysis of CO concentrations by the APCD. The APCD will notify the EPA, the AQCC, the 

NFRMPO and local governments of any exceedance of the CO standard within 30 days of 

occurrence. The ongoing regional transportation planning process carried out by the NFRMPO 

in coordination with the CDOT, the APCD, the AQCC, and the EPA, will serve as another 

means of tracking mobile source CO emissions into the future. Since revisions to the regions' 

transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years, which must go through a 

transportation conformity determination, a process is in place to periodically review the vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and mobile source emissions of CO presented in this maintenance plan. 

Triggering and Response 

Triggering of the contingency plan does not automatically require a revision of the SIP, nor is the 

area necessarily ·redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead, the State will have an 

appropriate time-frame to correct a violation by implementing one or more adopted contingency 

measures. In the event that violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been 

implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are 

corrected. 

An exceedance of the CO NAAQS (any value over 9.5 ppm) may trigger a voluntary, local 

process by the NFRMPO and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. 

However, the only federally enforceable trigger for mandatory implementation of contingency 

7 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
measures shall be a violation of the CO NAAQS. Specifically, this would be a second value of 

9.5 ppm or higher at the same monitor during any calendar year. 

The State will move forward with mandatory implementation of contingency measures under the 

SIP if a violation of the CO NAAQS occurs. No more than 60 days after being notified by the 

APCD that a violation occurred, the NFRMPO, in conjunction with the APCD, the AQCC and 

local governments, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential 

contingency measures. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of 

notification, and the recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 

180 days of notification. 

The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, 

along with any other contingency measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively 

address the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented 

within one year after a violation occurs. 

List of Potential Contingency Measures 

The NFRMPO and the APCD may choose one or more of the following measures to recommend 

to the AQCC for consideration. The measures will be designed to bring the area quickly back 

into compliance with the CO NAAQS. 

• An enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (liM) program as set forth in AQCC 

Regulation No. 11, with the addition of any on-board diagnostics components required by 

federal law. While an enhanced inspection and maintenance program is already required 

in Greeley through the Ozone Action Plan, the program is "state-only" and as such is not 

federally enforceable and could be eliminated in the future without regard to the Greeley 

CO maintenance plan. By placing an enhanced liM program in this Greely CO 

maintenance plan, and making any adjustments to achieve maximum carbon monoxide 

benefits, the program would become a federally enforceable contingency measure. 

• A 2. 7% oxygenated gasoline program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 13 as of 

September 2009. 

• Re-establishing nonattainment new source review permitting requirements for stationary 

sources. 

• In addition to these potential contingency measures, the State may evaluate other 

potential strategies, including but not limited to, transportation control measures and 

mandatory wood burning restrictions, in order to address any future violations in the most 

appropriate and effective manner possible. 

8 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 

The Clean Air Act requires that a maintenance plan revision be submitted to EPA demonstrating 

that the CO standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period. The initial maintenance 

plan approved by EPA in 1999 was completed under the "Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas" and, as such, was not required to project emissions 

over a maintenance period as long as control measures were maintained. Since two control 

measures were removed from the maintenance plan in the state's 2002 revision (liM and 

oxygenated fuels), that revision projected emissions through a 2015 maintenance period. 

This final revision demonstrates maintenance for a second 1 0-year period after the first 1 0-year 

period since redesignation (through 20 19) utilizing the Limited Maintenance Plan option to 

demonstrate continued maintenance through the 2019 time period. 

No additional revisions of this maintenance plan are anticipated at this time. If future changes in 

mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the 

conformity process, the State will address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time. 

9 

Draft December 2, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Technical Support Document 

40 CPR Part 51 Appendix V 2.2 
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

Greeley 

Technical Support Document 

Emission Inventory 

December 17, 2009 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Air Pollution Control Division 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, Colorado 80246 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

Table of Contents 

1. EMISSION INVENTORY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 1 

2. 2007 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 2 

3. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 

December 17, 2009 ii 

CO Mamtenance Plan for Greeley- Techmcal Support Document- Em1sswn Inventory 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

1. Emission Inventory Methodology 

The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) developed the 2007 emission inventories in the 

"Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Greeley" using U.S: Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) approved emissions modeling methods, including EPA's MOBILE6 model and local VMT 

data for on-road mobile source emissions, EPA's non-road model, local demographic information 

for area and off-road sources, and reported actual emissions for point sources. The inventory 

represents average daily winter emissions. The MOBILE6 and non-road model inputs represent 

these average daily winter conditions. Heating and wood burning emissions were apportioned 

from annual emission estimates by heating degree day data from the Western Regional Climate 

Center. Other source categories were apportioned from annual to daily by dividing by 365. 

Highway mobile source emissions are from the EPA model MOBILE6, an emission factor model 

for predicting gram per mile emissions of Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOx), Carbon Dioxide (C02), Particulate Matter (PM), and toxics from cars, trucks, and 

motorcycles under various conditions. 

Non-road source emissions are from the EPA Non-Road Model. This model includes the impact of 

future controls on non-road engines, which is used in equipment such as lawn and garden 

equipment and construction equipment. 

Area source emissions (including heating, construction, railroads, etc.) are from the 2002 EPA 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and grown to 2007 by population growth from data from the 

State. For more documentation for these categories, refer to the NEI documentation (EPA, 2008). 

Under Air Quality Control Commission Regulation No.3, the APCD requires any source that 

emits two tons per year or greater to submit an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) (APCD, 

2008). This means that sources that emit less than two tons per year are not necessarily accounted 

for in an emissions inventory. The point source emissions for Greeley were obtained from this 

tracking system. The emission estimates are made using a variety of methodologies. Data from 

source-specific emission tests, or continuous emission monitors are preferable, but not always 

available. The EPA has developed a variety of emission factors to estimate emissions as well. 

Emission factors are frequently the best or only method available for estimating emissions. 

Oil and Gas Emissions (O&G area and O&G point) from oil and gas exploration and development 

sources are based on the 2006 and 201 0 Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States 

(IP AMS) Inventory and the Norwest Corporation Study of oil and gas growth from 2010 to 2020 

for the DJ Basin. 

December 1 7, 2009 1 

CO Mamtenance Plan for Greeley - Techmca/ Support Document- Em1ssron Inventory 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

2. 2007 Emission Inventory Summary 

This section presents the 2007 emission inventories for the maintenance plan. 

Table 1. 2007 CARBON MONOXIDE Emission Inventory (tons per day). 

~nventory Summary ~O{Tons/Dayl 

Biogenic 0.00 

Commercial Cooking 0.05 

Fuel Combustion 0.55 

Highway Vehicles 55.36 

Non O&G Pomt Sources 0.58 

Non-Road 17.81 

O&G area 0.02 

O&Gpomt 0.03 

Railroads 0.04 

Structure Fires 0.03 

Woodburnmg 6.75 

TOTAl 81.23 

INon O&G Point Sources 

site :id ~ facility Ji ·i· ;."J'· I.,..·,. ·:.r ' \i\ ,·y ,. ., 

kl018 SWIFT BEEF COMPANY 0.05 

kl055 NORTHERN CO MEDICAL CTR 0.01 

Kl086 NORTHERN CO CREMATORY INC 0.00 

kl126 THERMO POWER & ELEC INC 0.04 

~150 SCHULTE INVESTMENTS (WAS ELSRO INC) 0.00 

k>322 CITY OF GREELEY WATER POLLUT CONTROL FAC 0.00 

k>395 MEADOW GOLD DAIRY 0.01 

0412 THERMO GREELEY INC 0.21 

0426 LAFARGE WEST, INC. -35TH AVE PLANT 0.06 

0494 UNIV OF NORTHERN COLORADO 0.10 

0556 HUMANE SOCIETY OF WELD COUNTY 0.00 

5153 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES- WCR, INC. 0.03 

TOTAl 0.58 

December 17, 2009 2 

CO Mamtenance Plan f or Greeley- Techmcal Support Document- Em1ss1on Inventory 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I Air Pollution Control Division 

3. References 

APCD, 2008. Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 3. Stationary Source 

Permitting and Air Pollutant Emission Notice Requirements. 5 CCR 1001-5. 

< http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/airregs/100103stationarysourcepermitting.pdf> 

U.S. EPA, 2008. "2002 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation." 

< http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html#documentation > 

December 17, 2009 

CO Mamtenance Plan for Greeley- Techmca/ Support Document- Emzsszon Inventory 

3 
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

Meeting Minutes 

- Action of the Commission to SIP Element Revision 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (g) 
STATE OF COLORADO 

Bill Ritter, Jr. , Governor 

James B. Marttn, Execut1ve D1rector 

COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

4300 Cherry Creek Dnve South 

OED-OLRA-A5 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Phone (303) 692-3100 

Fax (303) 69 1-7702 

TOO (303) 69 1-7700 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

December 17,2009 

MEETING MINUTES 

Location: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Room 

Members Present: 

Denver, CO 80246 

Robert Amott 

Teresa Coons 

Barbara Roberts 

Members Absent: None 

Commission Staff: 

Division Staff: 

Doug Lempke 

Paul Tourangeau 

Dena Wojtach 

Attorney General's Office: Jerry Goad 

Radford Byerly 

John Loewy 

Jon Slutsky 

Theresa Martin 

Ray Mohr 

Lisa Silva 

CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM 

Ashley Campsie 

Dawn Meyers (depart 1:00) 

Jim Wilson (depart 1:00) 

Lisa Clarke Bob True 

Chris Dann 

Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM and determined that a quorum of 

Commissioners was now present with nine Commissioners. 

APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Chair Roberts asked the Commission if there were any modifications to the minutes. 

There were minor revisions provided by Commissioner Wilson. 

Motion: 

Moved: 

Second: 

Discussion: 

Carried: 

To approve the November 19,2009 Meeting Minutes 

Commissioner Coons 

Commissioner Meyers 

none 

9-0 
PUBLIC COMMENT 

Chair Roberts asked if there were any members of the public who wished to make a comment on 

any air pollution issue not on the agenda. David Wolfsey with Sonic Spark, LLC presented the 

Commission with documentation regarding his concerns regarding the HHO convertor. Wolfsey 

commented that he believed that the HHO produced major destructive ECO pollutants such as 

nitric acid, hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides and wishes the Commission to look into this 

matter and his findings of this product. Wolfsey provided the Commission with a copy of the 

web pages advertising the HHO systems noting that there was no mention in the literature of the 

environmental effects. 

AGENDA REVIEW 

Chair Roberts asked Lempke to review the meeting agenda noting any items that may have 

changed, been added or deleted. Lempke commented that Item #8 Interstate Transport SIP had 

some issues that were raised by EPA and the Commission agreed to continue this item to January 

13, 2010 in order to allow EPA to provide further recommendations how the Division can 

produce a document that would be acceptable by EPA. 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 18,2010 

Contingency Provisions for the Rocky Mountain National Park Nitrogen Deposition 

Reduction Contingency Plan 

At 9:29AM Lisa Clarke of the Division provided the Commission with background surrounding 

the RMNP Nitrogen Deposition Reduction Plan and that a draft Contingency Plan was required 

by the end of 2009. Clarke reviewed the Contingency Plan timeline and the measurement 

development process. Clarke requested that the Commission set a public hearing to consider and 

endorse the Contingency Plan. Roberts commented that the Commission typically does not take 

public comment however; there was a request by a citizen to be heard regarding the timeliness of 

this hearing. Evelyn King representing citizens that had submitted 140 plus letters to the 

NFRMPO and Lempke. King noted her opposition to the Contingency Plan because of the 

inclusion of and reliance on liM information. The Commission discussed this issue. Coons 

asked to conduct the hearing after the Regulation Number 11 hearing that occurs in March. 

Motion: 

Moved: 

Second: 

Discussion: 

Carried: 

To approve the motion for hearing on Aprill5, 2010 

Commissioner Wilson · 

Commissioner Amott 

none 

9-0 

REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING HEARINGS NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation 

At 9:44AM Dena Wojtach of the Division provided the Commission with an overview of the 

Ambient Air Quality Standards Regulation and the reasons surrounding the proposed revisions. 

Wojtach noted that the removal ofthe Ambient Air Standards Table in Section II was necessary, 

as it was a duplication of the standards set by EPA and nationally applied without any action by 

the State. 

2 
Wojtach also noted that the removal of S02 increments in Section LB. was necessary as they 

were artifacts from the 1970's rulemaking, could not be applied per current rules, and were not 

applicable to any area of Colorado. Wojtach noted that while this proposal removes the stateonly S02 increment standards, it does not undermine existing protection for Colorado Federal 

Class I and II areas, or the national monuments and forest service primitive areas granted under 

Regulation Number 3. Wojtach requested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to 

consider the revisions to the regulation. Coons asked if a link to what could be added and 

Wojtach noted that there is a possibility that the link changes and then it becomes inaccurate 

information. Tourangeau commented that the Division would discuss if there were a way to 

include a link, but also noted where it could be found in case the link was changed or otherwise 

disconnected. 

Motion: 

Moved: 

Second: 

Discussion: 

Carried: 

To approve the motion for hearing on March 18, 2010 

Commissioner Wilson 

Commissioner Slutsky 

none 

9-0 

Regulation Number 8, Part C 

At 9:53AM Dena Wojtach of the Division provided the Commission with an overview of why 

the Division believes the lead emission standard and associated compliance demonstrations 

requirement should be removed from Regulation Number 8, Part C. Wojtach noted that the 

proposal to remove the existing lead emission standard and its associated compliance 

demonstration requirements was due to the recent promulgation of a new Lead National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard. Wojtach requested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to 

consider the revisions to the regulation. 

Motion: 

Moved: 

Second: 

Discussion: 

Carried: 

To approve the motion for hearing on March 18,2010 

Commissioner Byerly 

Commissioner Loewy 

none 

9-0 

Regulation Number 11 

At 9:57AM Garry Kaufman of the Division provided an overview of the revisions proposed 

which included: proposed program area boundaries in Larimer and Weld Counties, phase-in of 

the IM240 emissions pass/fail cutpoints, technical specifications for fleet-only emissions testing 

equipment, and the modification of the start-up date consistent with statutory directives. 

Kaufman commented that subsequent to the Commission's action in December 2008, the 

General Assembly passed Senate Bill 09-003 that revised the North Front Range program area 

boundaries to more accurately reflect the current ozone nonattainment area boundary and 

redefined the boundaries to incorporate a greater land area and affected population. Kaufman 

noted that the boundaries for the program would be set in accordance with the boundaries set 

forth in statute as a result of SB09-003. 

3 
Kaufman commented that in order to provide an ease of transition in the North Front Range a 

less stringent set of IM240 emissions pass/fail cutpoints was being proposed as well as limited 

flexibility to the state date of the enhanced inspection program. Kaufman also noted that the 

technical proposal included a set of detailed specifications for an exhaust Test Analyzer System 

that would be used by owners of gasoline vehicle fleets that choose to do their own inspections. 

Kaufman requested that the Commission set a rulemaking hearing to consider the proposed 

changes. Roberts commented that there were a number of public who wished to comment. State 

Representative Glenn Vaad of Weld County noted his support to delay the hearing. Senator 

Scott Renfroe urged the Commission to listen to the citizens of Weld and Larimer Counties and 

noted that he was bringing this issue to Legislation as an act to repeal SB09-003. Barbara 

Kirkmeyer Weld County Commissioner noted her opposition to program area boundaries. 

Kirkmeyer stated that local monitors continued to show falling levels of ozone and that the 

proposed program would be burdensome for the county clerk and citizens. Bruce Barker Weld 

County Attorney referenced Section 42 in SB09-003, doesn't need to implement requirement 

until end of 2011. Sean Conway Weld County Commissioner expressed his agreement with the 

others and presented NFRMPO Resolution 2009-7 and asked for postponement of this hearing. 

Carol Kirkstadt of Larimer County expressed her support of postponement. Evelyn King noted 

her support of the request to delay this hearing and noted that she believed that there was lack of 

compliance. King commented that if the Commission chose to go forward with the hearing in 

March, that they request that the hearing occur in the evening and at a location in the North Front 

Range to accommodate the citizens of Larimer and Weld counties. King also noted that several 

of the letters had been sent directly to the Division and asked that the Division tum those letters 

over to the Commission for the record. King also commented that the program would create 

more emissions as it would force citizens to drive long distances to test centers. Campsie and 

Wilson asked how this might impact the Ozone SIP adopted from December 2008 and what the 

fallout may be such as does the timing impact what has already been done. Silverstein 

responded that the expansion to the North Front Range is a state-only provision so it's not in the 

SIP that was submitted to EPA. Pierre De Milt Mayor ofthe Town of Severance expressed his 

support in postponement of the Regulation Number 11 hearing. 

Roberts noted that there was a statute before us that changes some of the decisions made to the 

Ozone Plan from December 2008. Roberts commented that the statute would indicate that a 

hearing must be conducted to hear the statutory authority as well as to hear from both sides on 

this. Roberts questioned if there was a delay could it still get up and running by July and 

Tourangeau responded that a postponement would delay everything. Kaufman noted that it 

could impact implementation of stations, hiring of contractors and other processes and believes 

that the sooner the hearing occurs the better. Roberts noted that one of the questions that the 

Commission will have to answer is the interpretation of the statute and determine whether it is 

self-implementing; does the statute say that the Commission has the authority of postponing the 

program and this must be discussed within a public hearing. Amott expressed concern if the 

changing standard would impact the boundaries and implementation. Slutsky commented that it 

sounds like the Division is planning to move forward with implementation of a full I/M program 

and if there is going to be a delay, that decision should be made sooner rather than later to avoid 

the Division doing all the work for nothing. Roberts noted to the Commission that there were 

two decisions to be made: 1) postponement of the hearing or not and 2) location of the hearing. 

4 
The Commission agreed that the hearing would be conducted in March, the venue would be in 

the North Front Range and the hearing would be held during the day. Barbara Kirkmeyer noted 

that they would be willing to work with Lempke to determine a location. 

Motion: 

Moved: 

To approve the motion for hearing on March 18,2010 and 

Commissioner Loewy 

Second: Commissioner Slutsky 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 9-0 

WRITTEN COMMENT 0NL Y RULEMAKING HEARING 

Common Provisions Regulation 

At 11 :04 AM Lempke noted that there would not be an official presentation as this was a written 

comment only rulemaking hearing regarding proposed revisions to the Common Provisions 

Regulation, Section I.G., specific to the definition of"negligibly reactive volatile organic 

compound" and "volatile organic compound" to be consistent with the federal definitions. 

Lempke commented that the Commission had not received any comments. 

Motion: To adopt Common Provisions Regulation revisions as proposed by the 

Division 

Moved: Commissioner Slutsky 

Second: Commissioner Campsie 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 9-0 

COMMISSION ACTION ONLY 

Regulation Number 13: Oxygenated Fuels Program 

At 11 :07 AM Lempke noted that on August 20, 2009 the Commission acted to adopt a proposal 

to repeal the requirements ofRegulation Number 13 in its entirety effective February 1, 2011. 

Lempke noted that this action of the Commission was not timely filed with the Secretary of State 

and did not become effective. The Commission considered an action to resubmit their August 

action to the Secretary of State for publication. 

Motion: To resubmit the August 20, 2009 adoption by the Commission repealing the 

requirements of Regulation Number 13 in its entirety effective February 1, 

2011 to the Secretary of State for publication in the CCR 

Moved: Commissioner Wilson 

Second: Commissioner Coons 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 9-0 

PUBLIC HEARINGS 

Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) Conformity 

At 11: 10 AM Lisa Silva of the Division noted that the presentation would include information 

from the DRCOG regarding its anticipated Transportation Conformity findings regarding the 

2035 Regional Transportation Plan second cycle amendments and the 2008/2013 TIP. 

5 
Silva commented that the NFRMPO was also in concurrence. Silva noted that neither the 

NFRMPO nor the Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region had amended their plans 

but because they were part of the 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment area, transportation conformity 

must be assured for those areas as well as the Denver region until the emission budgets for the 

individual areas were approved. Emily Chen of the DRCOG reviewed the Cycle 2 Amendments 

to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan and the 2008/2013 TIP. Chen noted that the 

amendments included a new toll facility to the regional system and three partial interchanges 

associated with the Jefferson Parkway, widening to the roadway system on Federal Blvd and also 

on 144th Avenue, and a RTD station location change in the North Metro corridor. Chen 

reviewed with the Commission the conformity tests conducted and what the results indicated. 

Chen commented that DRCOG believed they had made a positive conformity finding for its 

amended 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. Silva reviewed with the Commission the 

Division's transportation modeling inputs and noted that they had ran the air quality model, 

finding that future emissions were below allowable mobile source emission budgets for carbon 

monoxide, PMlO, and NOx and VOC for the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area. Silva also 

commented that future VOC and NOx emissions in the 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area were 

lower than base case (year 2002), and lower than 1-Hour Ozone emission budgets i.e., the 

interim conformity tests passed and asked that the Commission concur with the positive 

conformity findings. Slutsky asked about the $204 million and if it is just from tolls and private 

entities and Chen responded that it was construction costs on the project. Slutsky questioned 

whether or not this was really considered fiscally constrained." 

Byerly expressed concern regarding the Commission's commitment to this Plan commenting that 

there is about a 2-mile gap between the roadways. Cook commented that the project was 

proposed by the Jefferson Parkway Authority and they had provided information in the proposal 

such as traffic, economic development in the area. Cook noted that DRCOG had run it through 

the conformity modeling and found that the region still was passing the required tests. Byerly 

commented that if the roads are connected up, there will be a lot more traffic. Amott asked if 

there was an obligation to relook at the impact of the other segments that had been approved for 

adding a segment. Cook replied that there isn't a legal obligation and the DRCOG Board of 

Directors had not directed them to do a larger scale analysis, but the Public Highway Authority is 

required to conduct a smaller analysis for the southern corridor to Highway 93. Roberts asked if 

a project was proposed and the initial analysis indicated it would not conform would DRCOG 

then work with the Division to work out an offsetting program. Cook replied that the 

amendments would not be passed and DRCOG would have to change the amendment package or 

look at alternatives with the Division and the RAQC. Coons asked if recent projections that 

were implemented in the Plan were reflective of the recent economic downturn. Cook responded 

that those had not been incorporated; that DRCOG revises the assumptions every three to four 

years and isn't scheduled to do that for another couple of years, but have done modifications to 

the transportation model to reflect the downturn. Wilson asked when the segment is modeled; 

does it have an impact on the modeled factors of population growth? Cook replied that there was 

a cyclical process of land use in the transportation model; and that the more accessible an area 

was, the more development that the land use model would plug into that area and those zones. 

Cook noted that DRCOG didn't do a thorough analysis though. 

6 
Motion: To adopt revisions as proposed by DRCOG and the Division with a letter 

identifying the Commission's concerns regarding the processes, analyses, and 

funding 

Moved: Commissioner Coons 

Second: Commissioner Meyers 

Discussion: None 

Carried: 7-2 (Byerly and Amott opposed) 

RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

Interstate Transport SIP 

THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 13, 2010 

Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision 

At 1 :04 PM Chris Dann of the Division and Rich Muzzy of PP ACG presented to the 

Commission revisions to the CO maintenance plan for Colorado Springs. Dann noted that this 

was the second of two 10-year plans that were required by the Clean Air Act. Dann commented 

that the data confirms that the Colorado Springs area would continue to attain the carbon 

monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through 2020 and that the area had 

recorded no violations of the standard since the 1993 attainment year. Coons remarked about the 

spike in 2002 and if the Division knew what triggered this and Muzzy responded that it was 

possibly due to it being at a different location and possibly construction occurring at the time. 

Dann noted that particular location had been retired. 

Motion: To adopt Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan revisions as 

proposed by the Division 

Moved: Commissioner Coons 

Second: Commissioner Campsie 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 7-0 

Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan Revision 

At 1:17 PM Bob True of the Division and Suzette Mallette ofNFRMPO presented to the 

Commission revisions to the CO maintenance plan for Greeley. True noted that this was the 

second oftwo 10-year plans that were required by the Clean Air Act. True commented that the 

data shows that Greeley would continue to attain the NAAQS through 2020 and that no 

additional control measures were required for Greeley to continue attaining the standard. True 

did note that if future changes in mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise 

potential issues with the maintenance of the standard that the State would address the need to 

revise the maintenance plan at that time. 

Motion: To adopt Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan revisions as proposed 

by the Division 

Moved: Commissioner Slutsky 

Second: Commissioner Coons 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 7-0 

7 
BRIEFINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND REPORTS 

Commissioner Informational Items 

Byerly noted that Silverstein had some information for the Commission about his discussions 

with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Silverstein commented on a meeting that 

occurred a few months ago. Silverstein noted that Arnott and Byerly were responsible for this 

meeting and it was with scientists and researchers to evaluate the science for ozone. Silverstein 

noted that there was excellent dialogue on photochemistry, the research on air shed modeling, 

and ozone balloons. Silverstein commented that he would provide a matrix to the Commission at 

the February meeting. Amott commented that the matrix was very helpful. Byerly commented 

that it was an excellent meeting and the scientists felt it was beneficial to develop a relationship 

with the Division. Arnott thanked the Division staff for the ozone data that had been requested 

by himself and Wilson. Coons discussed the PM 10 issues related to Mesa County. Slutsky 

asked about the HHO documentation provided by David Wolfsey and if a letter should be 

written. Lempke noted that it was something that needed to be addressed and that he would 

contact Wolfsey after investigation of the product. Slutsky commented that he and one of the 

Water Commissioner's visited the sugar plant in Fort Morgan. Slutsky noted that they did admit 

that things weren't working and that they were not sure how to make things work. Roberts noted 

that it would be beneficial to have a briefing regarding odor regulations. Tourangeau noted that 

Lind had been invited to tour the facility and had a discussion with the plant manager. 

Tourangeau commented that the Division would send Lind a letter. 

Division Director's Report 

Tourangeau discussed: 

• Greenhouse gas affects and the Clean Air Act Tailoring Rule. Tourangeau noted that the 

rule would bring C02 into the permitting world 

• EPA 8-hour ozone NAAQS proposal should be out before Christmas 

• Power plants (Lamar and Comanche 3)- EPA's rule under CAMR was vacated which 

triggered Section 112. Lamar and Comanche 3 fall under Section 112.g. and there is 

currently litigation occurring to ensure the plants were in compliance. 

Attorney General's Report 

Goad discussed: 

• Valmont- Roy Young appeal to the Commission: Lempke provided an overview of what 

had occurred with the Valmont hearing and the letter received from Roy Young 

requesting an appeal. Goad provided input about the Commission's obligation regarding 

the appeal and what the Commission's options are in responding to the petition. Goad 

noted there were three options: 1) to do further or more detailed investigation into the 

allegations, 2) to deny the appeal on grounds of lack of substantial factual basis or 

pending an investigation, and 3) to provide an opportunity to gather more information 

such as a request for submittals or to conduct a hearing. Roberts commented she felt that 

the Division should readdress Young's initial letter and provide a more complete 

response to Young. Will Allison provided information regarding the permit process 

relating to Young's letter. Coons noted that if a letter were done that it should be noted 

that even if there is an investigation that it doesn't mean there would be a different 

response. 

8 
Arnott asked what would occur if through an investigation Young was found to be 

correct. Allison responded that it could cause the plant to cease operation or operation 

with coal. Tourangeau agreed with Roberts that the Division could produce a letter 

however the letter cannot address the initial letter from Young as it had already gone to 

EPA, but should address his appeal or petition letter. Lempke noted that the Division 

should respond to the Commission on the petition and the Commission would then 

respond to Young. Goad asked that this discussion be put into a motion as it is part of a 

statutory requirement. 

Motion: Move to respond Mr. Young's petition ofDecember 2, 2009 and ask the 

Division provide the Commission with additional information. 

Moved: Commissioner Slutsky 

Second: Commissioner Coons 

Discussion: none 

Carried: 7-0 

Administrator's Report 

Lempke reviewed: 

• January meeting: will provide lunch and the meeting will be held in CIA, Commissioners 

will need to meet at the guard's desk in Bldg. A and would be escorted to Bldg. C. 

ACTION ITEMS 

• Wolfsey investigation and response 

• Determination of March meeting location 

• Send letter to DRCOG about conformity concerns 

• Provide matrix from APCD/NCAR meetings 

• Schedule briefing on odor regulation for informational exchange and invite the facility 

and the Lind's 

• Get response from Division regarding Young petition and then respond to Young 

Roberts commented that Commissioners should keep Interstate Transport documents for the 

January meeting so as not to duplicate materials. 

Adjourn at 2:35 PM 

9 
Public Comments 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (h) 
NFRMPO 

NORTH 

FRONT RANGE 

METROPOLITAN 

PLANNING 

ORGANIZATION 

RESOLUTION NO. 2009- 17 

OF THE NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY 

PLANNING COUNCIL 

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 

GREELEY CARBON MONOXIDE MAINTENANCE PLAN 

SECOND 10 YEAR REVISION 

WHEREAS, the North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council ("the 

Council") is the Lead Planning Agency (LPA). for air quality planning in Colorado's North Front 

Range; and 

WHEREAS, the Council's role as the LPA necessitates involvement in the development of 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve federal and state air quality standards; and 

WHEREAS, the Council has is considering the second I 0 year Maintenance Plan for the 

Greeley area; and 

WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control 

Division is recommending a Limited Maintenance Plan for this area; 

WHEREAS, this Limited Maintenance Plan will allow for the tennination of a confonnity 

detennination for this pollutant after 20 IS; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NORTH FRONT RANGE 

TRANSPORTATION & AIR QUALITY PLANNING COUNCIL, that: 

The Council supports the Greeley Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Second I 0 Year Revision, 

2009 and recommends to the Air Quality Control Commission adoption of this Plan. 

Passed and adopted at the regular meeting of the North Front Range Traqsportation & Air Quality 

Planning Council this I" day of October, A.D., 2009. • # 

Larry Hec@t. Chair 

Cliff 
State Implementation Plan Element 

Adopted by the Commission 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V 2.1 (d) 
Revised Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan 

Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Area 

Second 10-year Rev1s1on: 

• Submitted to EPA-- TBD 

• Adopted by the Colorado A1r Quality Control Commission, December 17, 2009 

First Revision: 

• Adopted by the Colorado A1r Quality Control Comm1ss1on, December 19, 2002 

• Adopted by The North Front Range Metropolitan Plannmg Orgamzation, December 12, 

2002 

• Approved by The U.S. EnVIronmental Protection Agency August 19, 2005 

(effective September 19, 2005) 

Onqmal Redes1qnation Request and Mamtenance Plan: 

• Adopted by The Colorado A1r Quality Control Commission, September 19, 1996 

• Approved by The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 10, 1999 

Colorado Department 

of Public Health 

and Environment 

'RevisiOns prepared by: · 

The Air Pollution Control Division 

Colorado Deparbnent of Public Health & Environment 

4300 Cherry. Creek -Drive South - ·· 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 . 

(303) 692-3100 
Background 

The purpose of this second revision to the Greeley carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan is to 

show continued attainment of the federal CO standard for a second ten-year term (through 20 I9) 

as required by the federal Clean Air Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The Greeley area was originally designated as nonattainment for CO under provisions of the 

I977 Clean Air Act (CAA). This designation was reaffirmed by the 1990 CAA, and Greeley was 

designated as a "not classified" CO area. "Not classified" areas are those areas that have 

historically been designated as nonattainment, but did not have violations of the CO NAAQS 

during the two years preceding the 1990 amendments to the CAA. 

The EPA first approved a CO redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Greeley area 

on March I 0, 1999 (Federal Register Notice: 64 FR 11775). That plan established an attainment 

year of 1995 and provided for the continuation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program and an oxygenated gasoline program in the Greeley area. 

A revision of the plan occurred in 2002 to remove the inspection and maintenance program as 

well as the oxygenated fuels program. The 2002 revision showed an attainment year of I992 and 

continued maintenance through 20 I5 with emissions for all future years less than the I992 

attainment year emissions. The two control measures were removed because they were no longer 

needed to show attainment of the CO national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Removal 

of the control programs complied with state requirements that maintenance plans be no more 

stringent than federal requirements. EPA approved the revision on August I9, 2005 (Federal 

Register Notice: 70 FR 48650). 

Attainment History 

I977: Greeley designated nonattainment for CO under provisions of the Clean Air Act 

1982: First State Implementation Plan adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission to bring area into attainment by 1987. 

I987: Attainment would not be reached, so new plan was developed with additional control 

measures of basic liM, oxyfuels and woodbuming stove standards. 1987 also was the last 

year of a CO violation in Greeley. 

I984-I988: Number of CO yearly exceedances dropped from 10 in 1984 to I in I988. It takes 

more than one exceedance in a calendar year to result in a violation. 

I99I: Greeley designated "not classified" nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act revisions 

of I990. "Not classified" is for areas well below the NAAQS. The area was attaining the 

standard, and no SIP revisions were necessary under the CAA. 

I995: EPA published guidance for "not classified" CO areas to develop SIPS under the limited 

maintenance plan option. The APCD began a SIP revision under the limited maintenance 

plan option to request redesignation for Greeley as an attainment/maintenance area. 

1996: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the SIP plan and request for 

redesignation. The SIP was forwarded to the U.S. EPA. 

1999: Greeley was officially redesignated as an attainment/maintenance area by the U.S. EPA. 

Maintenance was demonstrated for 10 years through 2009 as required by the CAA. 

December I7, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
2002: The SIP was revised to remove liM and oxyfuels because Greeley was far below the 

NAAQS. That revision was adopted by EPA in 2005. 

2009: The SIP is updated to show continued attainment ofthe NAAQS for an additional10-year 

term, through 2019, as required by the CAA. 

Limited Maintenance Plan Option 

Colorado is using the Limited Maintenance Plan option in preparing this second ten-year 

revision. This option was also used in the initial Greeley CO maintenance plan and redesignation 

request that EPA approved on March 10, 1999. The option is explained in EPA guidance of 

October 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie, Group Leader, Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The guidance allows for a less rigorous approach than was previously required in developing 

maintenance plans for CO nonattainment areas that have design values at or below 7.65 ppm (85 

percent of the CO NAAQS). Greeley's design value in this plan revision is just 2.4 ppm (27 

percent of CO NAAQS), and was 5.3 ppm in the first 1 0-year maintenance plan. The design 

values were determined by using the second-highest maximum 8-hour value of eight consecutive 

quarters, as required by EPA guidance. Greeley has shown a continued reduction in CO values 

throughout the maintenance period. 

The limited maintenance plan approach requires development of an emissions inventory but does 

not require the inventory to be projected for future years. The maintenance demonstration is 

considered to be satisfied if the monitoring data show that the area is meeting the air quality 

criteria for limited maintenance areas (at or below 7.65 ppm or 85 percent of the CO NAAQS). 

Transportation conformity is demonstrated by showing that transportation plans are consistent 

with the emissions budget. The guidance for limited maintenance plans state that emissions 

budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining for transportation conformity because it is 

unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth during the maintenance 

period that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result. Therefore, the "budget test" of the 

transportation conformity rule is met, according to the guidance. 

Continued Attainment of the Carbon Monoxide Standard 

Attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide is demonstrated 

when monitoring data for each site show no more than one exceedance per year of the 8-hour (9 

ppm) and 1-hour (35 ppm) standards. Greeley has never exceeded the 1-hour standard, so this 

maintenance plan only addresses the 8-hour standard. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded 

in Greeley since 1988. 

Monitoring data for 1999-2008 demonstrates that Greeley continues to attain/maintain the 

national standard for carbon monoxide as required by 40 CFR 50.8. Data from 1999 through 

2008 are provided to demonstrate continual attainment/maintenance since the redesignation to 

attainment was promulgated in 1999. This demonstration is based on quality assured monitoring 

data representative of the location of expected maximum concentrations of carbon monoxide in 

2 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
the area (downtown Greeley). Data presented is the second highest maximum value recorded at 

the monitors. The second maximum value is used by EPA for determining compliance with the 

CONAAQS. 

The monitoring data presented in Table 1 verifies that Greeley continues to attain the national 8-

hour standard for carbon monoxide. Data recovery rates for the monitor exceeded the 75 percent 

completeness requirements for all years. All State and Federal quality assurance procedures were 

complied with, further substantiating the validity of the measurements as indicators of ambient 

carbon monoxide levels in Greeley. 

3 

December 17, 2009 - Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Table 1 

1999-2008, 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Summary for Greeley 

Standard: 8-hour = 9 ppm* 

8-Hour 2° 

1999 

St. 3.4 

St. 

2002 

3.4 

2008 

2.2 

* Due to mathematical rounding, a value of9.5 ppm or greater ts necessary to exceed the standard. 

Figure l. Greeley Attainment Area 

4 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Emission Inventories 

This maintenance plan revision utilizes 2007 as an attainment year for emission inventories, 

which is the same year from which the 2.4 ppm design value was derived. Emission inventories 

for a typical winter day are presented in Table 2 for the 2007 attainment year. Each inventory 

accounts for the emission control programs effective during that period. 

The modeling domain consists of the Greeley attainment area, which encompasses the City of 

Greeley and surrounding areas (see figure 1). The inventories were developed using EPAapproved emissions modeling methods, including the MOBILE6 emissions model, and the latest 

transportation data from the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) and demographic 

data from the State Demographers Office. 

Table 2. 

Greeley Attainment Area Emissions Inventory (Tons Per Day) 

Source Category 2007 

Biogemc 0.00 

Commercial Cookmg 0.05 

Fuel Combustion 0.55 

Highway Vehicles 55.36 

Non O&G Pomt Sources 0.58 

Non-Road 17.81 

O&G area 0.02 

O&Gpomt 0.03 

Railroads 0.04 

Structure Fires 0.03 

Woodburmng 6.75 

TOTAL 81.23 

Note: Results are reported w1th two dec1mal place prec1s1on to prov1de representation of smaller source 

categones. This level of precis1on IS not intended to suggest a level of accuracy. 

Enforceable Control Measures for the Maintenance Period 

• Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control tailpipe standards and regulations, 

including those for small engines and non-road mobile sources. Credit is taken 

for these federal requirements, but they are part of a federally administered 

program and not a state commitment of the Colorado SIP. 

5 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
• Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation No. 3, Air Pollution 

Emission Notices- Permits 

• AQCC Regulation No.4, Wood Stove Standards 

• AQCC Regulation Number 6, New Source Performance Standards 

• AQCC Common Provisions Rule 

The Common Provisions and Regulation No. 6 delineate industrial source control programs. The 

Common Provisions, and Parts A and B of Regulation No. 3, are already included in the 

approved Colorado SIP. Regulation No.6 and Part C of Regulation No.3 implement the federal 

standards of performance for new stationary sources and the federal operating permit program. 

The revised Greeley maintenance plan makes no changes to these regulations. 

Maintenance Demonstration 

This maintenance plan utilizes EPA's Limited Maintenance Plan option, as explained above. The 

Limited Maintenance Plan approach can be utilized when an area has a design value at or below 

7.65 ppm (85 percent ofthe CO NAAQS). The design value for the Greeley CO maintenance 

area is 2.4 ppm (27 percent of CO NAAQS), which is the highest second maximum 

concentration for the 2007-2008 monitoring period. 

Transportation Conformity Determination 

Under the limited maintenance plan approach, transportation conformity is demonstrated by 

showing that transportation plans are consistent with any existing emissions budgets. When any 

existing budgets expire, conformity is then presumed and regional analyses and emission budget 

tests for transportation conformity are no longer necessary. The guidance for limited 

maintenance plans states that emissions budgets may be treated as essentially non-constraining 

for transportation conformity because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will 

experience so much growth during the maintenance period that a violation of the CO NAAQS 

would result. Therefore, the "budget test" of the transportation conformity rule is met, according 

to the guidance. 

For the Greeley maintenance area, the EPA-approved emission budgets are 63 tons of CO per 

day (2005-2009), 62 tons per day (2010-2014), and 60 tons per day (2015 and beyond). 

According to the Limited Maintenance Plan guidance, these budgets are to remain in place, and 

conformity with these budgets must be demonstrated, through the year 2015. Beginning in 2016, 

the budgets expire. 

Once the Greeley CO attainment/maintenance area under the Limited Maintenance Plan option is 

not subject to the budget test, the area remains subject to other transportation conformity 

requirements. 

6 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Monitoring Network I Verification of Continued Attainment 

The AirPollution Control Division (APCD) will continue to operate an appropriate air quality 

monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify the continued attainment of the 

CO NAAQS. If measured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, congestion, 

fleet mix, etc.) change significantly over time, the APCD will perfonn the appropriate studies to 

detennine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary. An annual review of the 

NAMS/SLAMS air quality surveillance system will be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

58.10 to detennine whether additional and/or re-sited monitors are necessary and to detennine 

whether the system continues to meet the monitoring objectives presented in Appendix D of 40 

CFR Part 58. 

Contingency Plan 

Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that the maintenance plan contain contingency provisions 

to assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the CO NAAQS which occurs in 

the Greeley attainment/maintenance area. 

The contingency plan must ensure that the contingency measures are adopted expeditiously once 

the need is triggered. The primary elements of the contingency plan involve the tracking and 

triggering mechanisms to detennine when contingency measures are needed and a process for 

implementing appropriate control measures. 

Tracking 

The tracking plan for the Greeley area consists of continuous carbon monoxide monitoring and 

analysis of CO concentrations by the APCD. The APCD will notify the EPA, the AQCC, the 

NFRMPO and local governments of any exceedance of the CO standard within 30 days of 

occurrence. The ongoing regional transportation planning process carried out by the NFRMPO 

in coordination with the COOT, the APCD, the AQCC, and the EPA, will serve as another 

means of tracking mobile source CO emissions into the future. Since revisions to the regions' 

transportation improvement programs are prepared every two years, which must go through a 

transportation confonnity detennination, a process is in place to periodically review the vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and mobile source emissions of CO presented in this maintenance plan. 

Triggering and Response 

Triggering of the contingency plan does not automatically require a revision of the SIP, nor is the 

area necessarily redesignated once again to nonattainment. Instead, the State will have an 

appropriate time-frame to correct a violation by implementing one or more adopted contingency 

measures. In the event that violations continue to occur after contingency measures have been 

implemented, additional contingency measures will be implemented until the violations are 

corrected. 

An exceedance of the CO NAAQS (any value over 9.5 ppm) may trigger a voluntary, local 

process by the NFRMPO and APCD to identify and evaluate potential contingency measures. 

However, the only federally enforceable trigger for mandatory implementation of contingency 

7 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
measures shall be a violation of the CO NAAQS. Specifically, this would be a second value of 

9.5 ppm or higher at the same monitor during any calendar year. 

The State will move forward with mandatory implementation of contingency measures under the 

SIP if a violation ofthe CO NAAQS occurs. No more than 60 days after being notified by the 

APCD that a violation occurred, the NFRMPO, in conjunction with the APCD, the AQCC and 

local governments, will initiate a subcommittee process to begin evaluating potential 

contingency measures. The subcommittee will present recommendations within 120 days of 

notification, and the recommended contingency measures will be presented to the AQCC within 

180 days of noti"fication. 

The AQCC will then hold a public hearing to consider the recommended contingency measures, 

along with any other contingency measures the AQCC believes may be appropriate to effectively 

address the violation. The necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented 

within one year after a violation occurs. 

List of Potential Contingency Measures 

The NFRMPO and the APCD may choose one or more of the following measures to recommend 

to the AQCC for consideration. The measures will be designed to bring the area quickly back 

into compliance with the CO NAAQS. 

• An enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (liM) program as set forth in AQCC 

Regulation No. 11, with the addition of any on-board diagnostics components required by 

federal law. While an enhanced inspection and maintenance program is already required 

in Greeley through the Ozone Action Plan, the program is "state-only" and as such is not 

federally enforceable and could be eliminated in the future without regard to the Greeley 

CO maintenance plan. By placing an enhanced 11M program in this Greely CO 

maintenance plan, and making any adjustments to achieve maximum carbon monoxide 

benefits, the program would become a federally enforceable contingency measure. 

• A 2.7% oxygenated gasoline program as set forth in AQCC Regulation No. 13 as of 

September 2009. 

• Re-establishing nonattainment new source review permitting requirements for stationary 

sources. 

• In addition to these potential contingency measures, the State may evaluate other 

potential strategies, including but not limited to, transportation control measures and 

mandatory wood burning restrictions, in order to address any future violations in the most 

appropriate and effective manner possible. 

8 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision 
Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions 

The Clean Air Act requires that a maintenance plan revision be submitted to EPA demonstrating 

that the CO standard will be maintained for a second ten-year period. The initial maintenance 

plan approved by EPA in 1999 was completed under the "Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas" and, as such, was not required to project emissions 

over a maintenance period as long as control measures were maintained. Since two control 

measures were removed from the maintenance plan in the state's 2002 revision (1/M and 

oxygenated fuels), that revision projected emissions through a 2015 maintenance period. 

This final revision demonstrates maintenance for a second 1 0-year period after the first 1 0-year 

period since redesignation (through 20 19) utilizing the Limited Maintenance Plan option to 

demonstrate continued maintenance through the 2019 time period. 

No additional revisions of this maintenance plan are anticipated at this time. If future changes in 

mobile source models or other unforeseen considerations raise potential issues with the 

conformity process, the State will address the need to revise the maintenance plan at that time. 

9 

December 17, 2009- Greeley Attainment/Maintenance Plan Revision